Did the Church need reforming in 1517?

[Matt Black]

To what extent was the Catholic Church in error in 1517 with particular reference to the matter of the sale of indulgences?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Brother Adam]

I suggest the short book "The Roots of The Reformation" by Karl Adams. He does an excellent job of showing who was at fault where (both the Catholic Chuch and the Reformers) for what lead up to the split between the Church.

The Church is by no doubt comprised of sinners. During the 1500's certian practices of the Church were grossly misused by religious members of the Church. There was not a problem with any doctrine, only how some people choose to carry out the matter of indulgances. Let it also be said that the 'sale' of indulgances was never directly beneficial to those priests doing the 'selling'. The indulgance was almost always to give money to a charity.

[Matt Black]

To what extent could the Magisterium/ the Papacy be said to be complicit in that abuse?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Norseman82]

From what I remember being taught, the extremely serious abuses regarding indulgences were limited to parts of Germany.

[Socrates]

The Church did indeed need reforming (with regards to some corrupt practices that were being done by members of the Church). The problem is that Luther did not reform the Church, but broke away from the Church.
The Church was reformed during the Catholic so-called "Counter-Reformation" of the late 16th Century.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Matt Black' date='Feb 16 2005, 03:58 AM'] To what extent was the Catholic Church in error in 1517 with particular reference to the matter of the sale of indulgences?

Yours in Christ

Matt [/quote]
The Church's members are in constant need of moral purification, both in the present day and back in the year 1517; but the Church herself, as the spotless Bride of Christ, can never fall into doctrinal error.

God bless,
Todd

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Feb 16 2005, 09:21 AM'] I suggest the short book "The Roots of The Reformation" by Karl Adams. [/quote]
Which is all online for free:
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/RTREF.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/RTREF.TXT[/url]

[crusader1234]

Its kind of a loaded question isn't it?

[Matt Black]

Kind of, yes. The point or question at which I'm driving in asking the OP question is this: if the Church could get it wrong before 1517, what is the guarantee that She is getting it right today?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[cmotherofpirl]

Of course its a loaded question

The Church didn't get it wrong. Certain members of it did. You will always find some sort of scandal somewhere since we are sinful people, but the Church founded by Jesus Christ is protected by the Holy Spirit.

"and the gates of hell will not prevail" has carried us through 2000 years and counting.
Did you read the section on indulgences in the reference section yet?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Matt Black' date='Feb 17 2005, 04:18 AM'] Kind of, yes. The point or question at which I'm driving in asking the OP question is this: if the Church could get it wrong before 1517, what is the guarantee that She is getting it right today?

Yours in Christ

Matt [/quote]
Individual members of the Church can fall into error, but the Church herself cannot fall into error because she is the Body of Christ, and the Head (Christ) and His Body (the Church) are one man stretching throughout time. The Church is the perpetual extension of the incarnation throughout history. Thus, to ascribe doctrinal error to the Church is the equivalent of ascribing doctrinal error to Christ Himself. Moreover, the Magisterium of the Church in particular (i.e., the Pope and all the bishops in communion with him understood diachronically, and not simply synchronically), has received the sure charism of truth, and as a consequence, the Magisterium cannot fall into error when teaching on matters of faith and morals. In other words, the Church's Magisterium is infallible when it intends to bind the Christian faithful to a particular doctrine.

[jasJis]

Matt,
Would you answer a couple of questions for me?

Do you understand and agree with the concept of 'Hierachy of Truths'? For convenience, it's conditional statements that fall under the categories, such as 'Always True', 'Usually True', 'Sometimes True', 'Definitely True', 'Probably True', etc.

For rough example, Dogma is basically Always True statements, Doctrine is Probably True, Discipline is Probably True (and allows for subjective choice).

The Catholic Church, is rooted in Dogma and is the source for Doctrine. As time progresses, Doctrine is refined as more minds and souls ponder and examine it's actions in the world. Doctrine may change, but not to a contradictory state as it's roots is Dogma. Discipline is something that changes even more often as it allows for more subjective choices.

To claim the Catholic Church is completely corrupt is to claim it's Dogma are wrong. Even Luther didn't say that. It's the tail wagging the dog concept. The infallibility of the Church is rooted in the Dogmatic facts that Christ will not abandon the Church, and it is a living organization. Doctrine and Discipline will be corrected and refined through out the ages provided we don't abandon the Dogmatic Cores. Unfortunately, that is what has happened and why some 'christian' churches deny the trinity, the reality of sacraments, the divinity of Christ, etc., etc.

It isn't logical to claim that core Truth Statements are in error just because dependent Statements have some errors. The Dependent Statements include other statements as they are a development or extropulation from the core.
have

[yiannii]

As I understand it - around that time there was a lot of confusion going around so the counter-reformation was sort of used to clearly define where the Church stood on things.

[Matt Black]

JasJis, no, I'm not familiar with that kind of hierarchy of epistemology. I think I get what you're saying but would be grateful if you could unpack that a bit more for me. Don't forget I'm an evangelical and we tend to have an absolutist view of all truth!

Yours in Christ

Matt

[jasJis]

Matt,
Aren't you a lawyer?

[Matt Black]

Yes, but not a theologian!

Yours in Christ

Matt

[MC Just]

Yes but when the Church needs reformation, God will send someone for it. That was not a "reformation" it was a Deformation.

[crusader1234]

I guess one way of putting it is that the hierarchy of the Church could have used a reformation, in how they dealt with abuses, but no reformation of doctrine was ever needed and will never be needed.

[Mary's Knight, La]

to what extent did the church need reforming... no extent at all
to what extent did her members need reforming... well part of that answer is obvious and other parts are between them and God

To answer your clarification (what makes us sure she's right now): some of her members messed up in how they did things... not what they did... allow me a brief clarification:

raising money for the church is good
granting indulgences is also good

it is only when they tried raising money by selling indulgences that problems came

it was never a belief of the church that the purpose of indulgences was to sell them, only action was wrong not belief (except perhaps the belief that selling them was okay, but I don't think you can say the church as the church taught that)

[jasJis]

Matt,
No theology is needed. Just logic. As a lawyer, you know that certain statements are true, no matter how you look at it. Another statement, built on the first answer may be true given a certain set of circumstances. A lawyer leads a jury in the logic by building on previous 'truths'. You can easily see examples of hierarchal truths in Math. 1+1=2, 1+1+a=2+a=2 if a=0, but not if a>0. The value of one is Dogma, the first formulas are Doctrine, and finally, the subjective value of "a" is Discipline.

This brings things back to the Reformation. If at some time, the Church's Discipline is 1+1+a (where a=.5)=2, something needs to be reformed. The point of contention is whether or not to scrap the whole number concept, but to examine the Doctrine (the formula) and the Discipline (the subjective value of "a"). In the case of indulgences, it wasn't the Dogma or Doctrine, but the human subjective value of indulgences for works of charity and defining cash donations as charity, but not looking too closely at the message being given.

Infallibility of the Church is trust in the Dogmatic Truth that the Holy Spirit abides in His Church, and will allways be present to CORRECT Discipline and develop Doctrine, and prevent loss of Dogma. It does not mean that the Church is perfect in everyway and is infallibly perfect in Doctrine and perfect in Discipline. God participates with humanity by overcoming our failures and making them a victory for Him.

The Church reforms itself from the Grace within. It denies the Holy Spirit to believe one has to go outside the Church to find Grace for reform because that says that Grace has abandoned the Church.